sacredseasonsfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Classes
the idea of this wiki is to let players collect information they find useful about Sacred Seasons and present it in a formthat makes it usable. making the list of classes impossible to browse fast by splitting it into 16 sub-pages effectively makes the information about them inaccessible for people who want a quick overview to help them pick a class. it is a good idea to have an extra page for each class, to collect useful tidbits, like damage done with a specific weapon at a specific level, which weapon best to use, and so on. does anybody know a good reason for hiding the class overview from players? no clue who posted above??? I changed the contents section back so you can link directly to the area, this is hidable so people can still quickly scroll down and see all the classes. I'd also like to see information about damage output on the specific pages perhaps to make it fair have it so no weapons are used with damage output at each level. The problem with this is AoE spells would need to be defined by how much damage they do PER target ie a 17th level shaman does ~54 per mob. whereas a 17th level snow bandit does ~34 per mob.--Sodtiwaz 23:34, September 29, 2009 (UTC) ---- Please stop changing the wiki to a form which you believe is usable. The Classes page was made that way for a reason, and it used to look the way you have made it. The general public believe that the way it is now is by far the best way. Please stop making change that i have to continually UNDO. The reasoning you have given was thought about, and deemed not optimal. An additional reason why there is a contents page, and then an individual page or each class is that this prevents TWO tables which need to be kept updated. by housing the data in one place, you retain data integrity. Bojanturk 00:21, September 30, 2009 (UTC) ---- Please stop changing the wiki to a form which you believe is usable. The Classes page was made that way for a reason, and it used to look the way I have made it. Don't worry about data integrity, I've got that covered. Once I've made the change, the tables will automatically stay synchronized everywhere in the wiki. I probably don't have time for it today, but I'll put that change in tomorrow. The inner workings or effort needed on the part of the coders can never be the deciding factor in an interface decision, unless the costs become prohibitive. The general public believe that the old way is by far the best way. Please stop making change that i have to continually UNDO. The pretty complete absence of reasoning on your part (with the exception of the moot argument about data integrity) was thought about, and lack of reasons to do something in favor of actual reasons to not do it was deemed not optimal. As you will notice, I have not changed the page back yet and am eager to hear your excellent arguments, which swayed the considerable number of people you have gathered to back you up as "the general public". me and a few friends were very unhappy with the change, since we love to try out new classes and were no longer able to pick one. might as well skip this wiki and go to the official homepage. No thanks to you for that. So yeah, I'm the guy who made the damage by class page and populated half the table, and as you can see in the discussion for that page I listen to reason and am more than willing to get with the new program, if it makes sense. The old damage per class table can probably be salvaged and may even become useful as we can compare data of the two tables and deduce the formulas underlying damage calculation. If you feel me an untolerable disturbance to this wiki, with my harsh demand for reasons for making the wiki unusable, I'll happily remove everything I've contributed and be on my way --Tomtom6 08:04, September 30, 2009 (UTC) ---- "me and a few friends were very unhappy with the change, since we love to try out new classes and were no longer able to pick one." I find that statement quite laughable, that you are no longer able to pick a class because instead of having to scroll down, you have to click to a page. If you feel the official homepage is of more use to you than a table that has been populated thanks to much work on the part of many people, I'm sure many would welcome you there with open arms. "might as well skip this wiki and go to the official homepage. No thanks to you for that." And really... addressing the people who have put hours into this site as if they work for you, or at the very least owe you something, is quite rude. "If you feel me an untolerable disturbance to this wiki, with my harsh demand for reasons for making the wiki unusable, I'll happily remove everything I've contributed and be on my way" If you are so childish as to play the game of *who has contributed more* you are doing nobody any favors, least of all, yourself. --Bojanturk 08:33, September 30, 2009 (UTC) ---- Do this: Check out each class, then compare a few of them. Do this with your "improved" layout, then do it with the old layout. Time both. Once you've done that, tell me which was faster, and whether the clicking back and forth was so obstructive that it makes comparing mare than a few classes simulatenously difficult. Once you're done with that, go back to this discussion and reread all your arguments in favor of the change. There are exactly two, data consistency with tables which appear in two places and the fact that the sub-pages leaveroom for further information about each class. I never disputed the usefulness of additional pages for each class, but it is not an argument with serious weight concerning this class overview page, and the first argument is moot, as I have already mentioned. That leaves you with zero arguments in favor of your change. the only other arguments you have given so far are that I am "childish", "laughable", and "the general public agrees on the change". none of these are actual arguments, they are empty phrases and attempts at insulting me. Please state some arguments once you're done insulting me and trying to browbeat me with empty phrases. "might as well skip this wiki and go to the official homepage. No thanks to you for that." And really... addressing the people who have put hours into this site as if they work for you, or at the very least owe you something, is quite rude. lol, you are deliberately trying to misinterpret me. nobody owes me anything. people contribute to a wiki, and by its nature somtimes contributions may be compromises. I respect all contributions I have seen so far which did not take something major away and am truly impressed by how good for example the table that describes each class looks. Once you start giving arguments, I will listen to and consider them. If you convince me or I you, all is good, if neither happens that is not a problem either. this is a wiki. there is no reason not to have two pages, one displaying all the classes with links to the subpages for the classes, the other just listing the class names as links to the sub pages. no reason whatsoever. I was not the one to make the class information harder to access without giving a reason in the Classes discussion page, let alone a reason that holds up under scrutiny. "If you are so childish as to play the game of *who has contributed more* you are doing nobody any favors, least of all, yourself." you are trying to browbeat a group of contributors and users into accepting an (so far) inexplicable, seemingly damaging change. as soon as you stop acting that childish, I will stop stooping down to your standards in my actions --Tomtom6 09:13, September 30, 2009 (UTC) ---- Zoycite 18:45, September 30, 2009 (UTC) I prettied up the page a bit and made the navigation horizontal and added images for people who are visual. Maybe the solution is simply make a class comparison page which lists the details of the classes discretely instead of in a "display format". As the original template designer of the class template I was going to make each class it's own page, as was the intention of the template originally; it was only by convention and convenience from an EDITING perspective that I did not divide the page up into individual articles at the time I created the template; that is I wanted to verify all the templates were correct simultaneously: before I got to making them into their own page someone had done it for me. I realize people like the look of the template. I will make a new article for comparing character classes which will be geared for comparing classes directly. ''' '''Please do not post things on the main page stating do not edit articles this is disruptive to the wiki and discouraging to new would be wiki authors. I do not want to favor one version of the article or the other; however I will make something to solve this problem. ---- Kaseijin 21:50, September 30, 2009 (UTC) I added a navigation box to the class template. It's much slower than switching tabs in a browser, but very convenient to open those tabs. Tomtom6, if you are planning to put every character class in a template, add So i don't have to do it later :) ---- --Tomtom6 16:21, October 1, 2009 (UTC) Yeah that was exactly what I had in mind. Looks to me like we have exactly the situation that the OCD faction wanted to avoid: having two versions of each class description table which need to be kept synchronized by hand (one is on the Compare Classes page). Instead of just making 16 different templates right away, I'll check out the wiki manual, maybe the wiki syntax offers more options. Would be a shame to lose the different formatting in the two table versions It's getting weird that there still doesn't seem to be a reason to spread the class overview information into 16 sub pages and then making a "Compare Classes" page as a crutch to makeup for the loss of information accessibility ---- Kaseijin 19:06, October 1, 2009 (UTC) We could store class data in template used like: With two levels of ifs/switches it will be quite readable and easy to change. So if we make a displaying method ClassDisplayerOne that is defined as: }} | Optional information: } }} |} *We can use it like *If new properties are to be added to database we only have to change: **the database **templates defining how it is displayed *If new classes are to be added to database we only have to change: **the database **articles with all classes **articles of each new class *Data separated from displaying method, which is separated from use *There will be two levels of transclusion *Inexperienced editors can just add additional information on each class page below displayer, or in it's optional parameters. *Stats of all classes are all on one page Kaseijin 19:29, October 1, 2009 (UTC) | 60 | | This guide is outdated Category:Articles outdated due to character stats change}} :D ---- items as well Zoycite technically items could suffer the same problem since they are also summarized in places as well as monsters. definitely something should be done to make it more of a database where parameters can be pulled from to avoid misinformation in other areas where the information is referenced. i created the compare as a quick easy way to do the compare. im not saying this is optimal; but it does accomplish the job for now, improvements can be made. Kaseijin 21:52, October 6, 2009 (UTC) I made the Template:ClassDatabase and started updating templates and articles. Attacking Speed About 3 weeks ago, the attacking speed for almost all of the classes was adjusted to help balance the game. The times listed for attacking speed in this wiki are from before the change, so they are outdated. I have timed out the classes to get the new values, but I'm not sure how to change the database, so here is a link to the new times, for anyone who does know how to change them: http://sacredseasons.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=611 --Lorkas Tampflor 20:48, October 10, 2009 (UTC)